Fuji MF Lenses vs Fujinon XF-Prime lenses

[lino chetcuti]

I am curious to hear from fujinon xf-prime lenses fans.
about using MF/Lenses:lets say canon FD 35/2 and other MF/Brands vs Fujinon XF-Prime lens
quality wise not using LR or cc or cs6 etc.

 

[KillRamsey]

What exactly do you want to know? By "quality wise" do you mean resolution, sharpness, micro contrast, color rendering, what? Because the internet is full of reviews and samples of all those XF lenses. What is it about manual focus lenses that has anything to do with "quality"?

 

[lino chetcuti]

XF-prime lenses are expensive vs used mf/lenses good resolution+sharpness and so on, xf-are they worth the price vs the Mf's lenses .

 

[Lightmancer]

There's no right answer here. This may help: Fuji X-E1 and Legacy Lenses but ultimately your lenses are simply like the brushes of an artist. You can find cheap ones, expensive ones, big ones, little ones, but they are simply a means to an end - your own self expression. Choose by what you want to achieve not by price. Choose from smooth Sonnars, edgy Elmars, nice Nikkors, funky FEDs, creamy Canons, or the optical excellence and neutrality of Fujinon lenses. Don't forget that particularly if you are only planning to use one legacy lens, or different lenses from different manufacturers, you have to budget for an adaptor or adaptors. DON'T BUY CHEAP - it's false economy. With legacy you gain the "look" of different formulations and computations, not to mention aberrations. You lose AF, consistency. You have to master manual focus and stop-down metering.

As I said, there is no right answer. It's your vision to realise.

 

[KillRamsey]

The 35 f1.4 lens is optically excellent - I don't think "excellent" even describes it. And it's, what, $500? $400? The AF isn't blazing fast, but it's fast enough to be of use.

The Rokinon MF lenses, new, are usually around $320 - $400. Those are surprisingly crisp, and a joy to use as long as you're good with manual focus. At a difference of just about $100, the 35 1.4 is worth it every time against a similar focal length manual focus lens.

To start finding real bargains, in terms of price-for-resolution, I think you have to start mining the late 1970's, and get off of the top tier brands. Rokkor made hundreds of thousands of optically great 50 f1.7 lenses, and practically gave them away. But when you go wider in Rokkor, there are no bargains anymore. The 28 f2.8 is pretty good, I have it and have used it on the XT1, but it's inferior to the XF 27 f2.8 pancake, which itself isn't stellar as Fuji primes go. There's nothing wide AND fast for film lenses in Rokkorland that isn't a lot of money.

These MF lenses are, in short, either optically far off the XF lenses, or if they're close optically, then they're close enough in price to make you second guess giving up all the goodies that come with an electronic interface.... aperture control by camera, exif data, and of course autofocus.

I like my rokkor 55 f1.7 for portraits, for example. It's crisp in the center but softer at the edges wide open. But I can't kid myself into thinking it approaches the XF 56 f1.2 in any real way.

 

[Lightmancer]

Actually, in my experience, there are precious few bargains left in legacy glass. Everyone and their wife has worked out that they can be fitted to mirrorless cameras and the market has tightened as a result.

 

[KillRamsey]

You can still order a Minolta 50 f1.7 for $37 today. There ain't MANY deals left, but this is still a much better lens than 37 bucks would suggest...

MINOLTA 50MM F/1.7 ROKKOR X MD MOUNT MANUAL FOCUS LENS {55} | KEH Camera

 

[KillRamsey]

But perhaps more to Bill's point (and still in line with what I wrote above), a 35 f1.8 from Minolta in excellent shape is $339. So as soon as you start deviating off 50mm, the price goes up quickly.

MINOLTA 35MM F/1.8 W ROKKOR X MD MOUNT MANUAL FOCUS LENS {49} | KEH Camera

 

[lino chetcuti]

There's no right answer here. This may help: Fuji X-E1 and Legacy Lenses but ultimately your lenses are simply like the brushes of an artist. You can find cheap ones, expensive ones, big ones, little ones, but they are simply a means to an end - your own self expression. Choose by what you want to achieve not by price. Choose from smooth Sonnars, edgy Elmars, nice Nikkors, funky FEDs, creamy Canons, or the optical excellence and neutrality of Fujinon lenses. Don't forget that particularly if you are only planning to use one legacy lens, or different lenses from different manufacturers, you have to budget for an adaptor or adaptors. DON'T BUY CHEAP - it's false economy. With legacy you gain the "look" of different formulations and computations, not to mention aberrations. You lose AF, consistency. You have to master manual focus and stop-down metering.

As I said, there is no right answer. It's your vision to realise.

Thx.

 

[Stevelink]

Hi Lino.
As Killramsey and others have said so eloquently, the Fujinon XF lenses are superb, and naturally, most compatible with the FujiFilm cameras! For the last 40 years, I have always been an "OEM guy", meaning that I have only used native glass (Nikkor with Nikon, Pentax with Pentax, etc.), and the same way for Fuji (Fujinon with FujiFilm). The XF 35 f/2, 16-55, and 60 Macro are all stellar optics, especially in terms of sharpness! My one deviation has been with the Rokinon 8mm f/2.4 Fish-eye, since there's no exact Fujinon equivalent. It has proven quite sharp in the center, though not at the level of Fujinon optics. Good luck!

 

[lino chetcuti]

Hi Lino.
As Killramsey and others have said so eloquently, the Fujinon XF lenses are superb, and naturally, most compatible with the FujiFilm cameras! For the last 40 years, I have always been an "OEM guy", meaning that I have only used native glass (Nikkor with Nikon, Pentax with Pentax, etc.), and the same way for Fuji (Fujinon with FujiFilm). The XF 35 f/2, 16-55, and 60 Macro are all stellar optics, especially in terms of sharpness! My one deviation has been with the Rokinon 8mm f/2.4 Fish-eye, since there's no exact Fujinon equivalent. It has proven quite sharp in the center, though not at the level of Fujinon optics. Good luck!

Thx Stevelink, appreciate your info.

 

[Lumens]

Hi Lino.
As Killramsey and others have said so eloquently, the Fujinon XF lenses are superb, and naturally, most compatible with the FujiFilm cameras! For the last 40 years, I have always been an "OEM guy", meaning that I have only used native glass (Nikkor with Nikon, Pentax with Pentax, etc.), and the same way for Fuji (Fujinon with FujiFilm). The XF 35 f/2, 16-55, and 60 Macro are all stellar optics, especially in terms of sharpness! My one deviation has been with the Rokinon 8mm f/2.4 Fish-eye, since there's no exact Fujinon equivalent. It has proven quite sharp in the center, though not at the level of Fujinon optics. Good luck!

Thx Stevelink, appreciate your info.

Interesting, I can say the same here. All Fuji glass for my Fuji except I just picked up the Rokinon 12mm f/2. I picked it up for night photography. but I do find it also an excellent wide angle lens. I must agree with the comment - definitely not up to Fujinon Optics, but an excellent choice for what I want to do with it especially at the price point.

 

[lino chetcuti]

Thx Lumens.

 

[ba1988]

I have the xf 27 and tried the 35 this weekend. Got some sharp raw pics and was impressed how the 27 kept up...id say the 35 was a tad sharper but they both render amazingly. However, coming from Nikon where there cheaper primes are sharp but have bad aberation Imo, you can't go wrong with the XF lenses. I've never seen a single coloured fringe from the 27, or from the 16-50 50-230 for that matter. Excellent glass.

 

[tonyturley]

I'm thinking my days with legacy glass are coming to an end. For a long time, that was almost all I used on my MILCs. Got a lot of really nice photos, too. Then I rented an X100S. There was just something to the color and clarity that I hadn't experienced before. I purchased an X-E1 and a 14mm f/2.8. Wow. Although my Konica lenses work well on the X-E1, I just see a significant difference with my one Fuji lens. The 35mm f/2 will be next. I also have that lovely 23mm f/2 on the way ... attached to an X100. I was going to wait on the rumored X-mount 23mm f/2, but until it is released, it is still just a rumor.

I'm sold on the Fuji glass.

 

[KillRamsey]

It was probably inevitable. The differences are visible at web-size, and they're usually pretty big. There's something lovely about the right older / less advanced glass, charming almost, but the detail and color on the XF lenses is just so ... GOOD. The pull is strong.

 

[ba1988]

yes Fuji glass is excellent. I have been messing with older Minolta and vivitar MF primes and they are great but lack contrast compared to XF or even XC lenses (which are often overlooked but the 16-50XC outperforms any other 'kit' lens I've tried from other systems.

I like the older glass as it gives a mellow look, and the Minolta with the CC film mode is awesome looking

 

[Lightmancer]

I think of lenses a bit like paintbrushes. They come in a range of diameters and materials and can be used for fine or coarse work. There are no real limits as to which brush one uses for what; one could paint the Forth Bridge with a fine sable calligraphy brush if one really wanted but there are others better suited to the job.

Quod penicullus, ita lentil... MF lenses on a Fuji are a stylistic choice (in use and result) and can deliver some characteristic (and characterful) images but I wouldn't use them as my primary optics any more than I would own a car and walk five miles to the shops and back; it can be done, I may feel better for it, but there are more efficient ways to get a pint of milk.

 

[KillRamsey]

I found one use for the rokkor MC 55 f1.7 that I like a lot: portraits. The slight softness and more dramatic falloff is perfect for that. It's honestly much, much closer to the XF 56 f1.2 at being "the thing one might choose to go take this portrait shot" than anyone should believe.

Annika, OCT 2014 by gordopuggy, on Flickr

Considering it's a $25 lens from 1969 on a $50 adapter, it's got no business looking this good, in my opinion. Yes, the 56 f1.2 is much easier to use - fast AF, auto-able aperture, better contrast and sharpness, but ... not $930 better. Still, I'm glad I have both.

Meanwhile, I have not found a compelling use for the rokkor MD 28 f2.8 lens. It's too close to the pancake XF 27 f2.8 lens, and performs too much worse to get me to use it for anything. A fine lens for film, but not for that big 16MP sensor.

 

[ba1988]

great pic! I managed this at iso6400 with a x-fujinon 50mm f/1.9 from 1983:

not sure if I'm more impressed with the lens or the camera at iso6400!